News:

"There is a terrible desperation to the increasingly pathetic rationalizations from the climate denial camp. This comes as no surprise if you take the long view; every single undone paradigm in history has died kicking and screaming, and our current petroleum paradigm 🐉🦕🦖 is no different. The trick here is trying to figure out how we all make it to the new ⚡ paradigm without dying ☠️ right along with the old one, kicking, screaming or otherwise." - William Rivers Pitt

Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert

Renewable power generation in Germany is headed for a record this year, according to utility E.ON. “By year-end, we expect more than 200 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of renewable generation and feed-in – about five billion more than in 2017, and more than ever before,” said Victoria Ossadnik, head of E.ON Energie Germany. E.ON said this amount of renewable power could cover the annual consumption of 66 million households, equivalent to all households in Germany and Italy combined.

The company said, according to its calculations, the 2018 renewable generation to date will top the entire 2017 output sometime this week.

Posted by: AGelbert

Clean energy jobs in the rural Midwest outnumberthose in fossil fuels in ten out of 12 states

According to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, clean energy employed roughly 158,000 people in 2017, with the majority of those jobs found in energy efficiency. In that year, 31 gigawatts of wind and solar were added in the Midwest.

While a larger amount of these clean energy jobs were located in urban areas, they accounted for a larger proportion of rural jobs.

President Emmanuel Macron of France depressed nuclear executives globally in late November 2018, announcing the planned retirement of 14 of 58 reactors by 2035. This was still less than was promised in his election campaign, but represents a major internal political battle, as well as a major change of France’s circumstances.

France did a better job than most of building nuclear plants. They picked a single design and built a bunch of them over a relatively concentrated 20 years from about 1978 onward. It was a massive, state-funded, state-managed energy infrastructure initiative at a scale rarely seen. They dodged a bunch of the mistakes of other geographies somewhat by accident. They aren’t subject to earthquakes or tsunamis. They kept the technology highly standard. They developed a skilled workforce for building them and rewarded them well.

But the last nuclear reactor went live almost 20 years ago, the oldest ones are at end-of-life, and the skilled workforce only knows how to maintain and operate existing reactors now, not build new ones. The current President of France, Macron, used to be the Minister of Industry. He’s stated publicly that even he couldn’t find out how much the build-out actually cost, with the clear assertion that a bunch of actual costs were hidden.

Quote

“Nobody knows the total cost for nuclear energy,” he said. “I was minister for industry and I could not tell you.”

And France had to build nuclear to be load-following due to its over-reliance on a more usually inflexible form of generation. Nuclear is good for baseload up to 30–40%, but when it has to be turned on and off it gets a lot more expensive very quickly.France has the good fortune to have been able to export a lot of electricity to the rest of the EU for several years, but the energy mix on the continent is strongly favoring more flexible forms of generation.

And now, a few things have changed in the decades since France made its huge bet on nuclear generation in the Messmer Plan in 1974.

Renewables are dirt cheap, with Lazard’s latest figures bringing them in at 3–6 times cheaper than new nuclear. (Amusingly, Lazard still labels wind and solar as ‘alternative energy‘. )Europe is a leading geography for wind and solar, so skilled trades and supply chains all exist. Europe’s grid has strengthened and expanded over the past 30 years, so the need for a country to go it alone has diminished substantially.

The EU was founded in 1993 and France is an integral part of it, and that has two impacts. The first is that France’s energy independence policy that was part of the impetus for a massive nuclear fleet looks archaic in context of modern politics and economics. The second is that EU regulations forbid destabilizingly large governmental subsidies for energy, something which the Hinkley plant in the EU had to fight through. As Macron’s experience shows, it’s actually impossible for anyone to figure out how much any nuclear plant actually cost due to budget fudging. This last is true globally, by the way.

French attempts to build next-generation reactorsare failing in multiple locations in France and elsewhere. The cost and budget overruns and construction failures are staggering.

And Chernobyl and Fukushima both happened since the French nuclear build-out began. Public support diminished substantially after those events, one on the same continent and one a world away.

France receives a greater percentage of its electricity from nuclear than any country in the world, at 72% close to 50% more than its nearest ‘competitor’, Slovakia. And it will diminish over the coming decades. Its last-built reactor will reach end-of-life in 2040 or so. It’s unlikely that it will be replaced. And it’s unlikely that more than a fraction of the aging reactors will be refurbished at all.

Wind, solar, a continent-scale grid, and open economic borders all contributed to the death of the Frenchnucleardream.

It’s time for France to wake up and join the future, and it has. It voted in Macron, a politician who promised to reduce France’s nuclear fleet. He fought the entrenched bureaucracy and EDF, and while the new plans are slower than the promised ones, they are the right plans on a pragmatic timeline.

Let us not forget WHO PROFITED from these radioactive white elephants when the bill for decommissioning them comes due. Yes folks, that bill will be massive.

The logical thing to do is find every single person in every corporation that profited directly from building and maintaining these nuclear reactors and TAX THEM appropriately for the cost of decommissioning said nuclear reactors.

Yes, I know, ALL the French public will be billed for this while those who profited from the polluting energy will pay a pittance. That's how things "work" in CAPITALISM. 👎👎👎 😡🤬

A new report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance has highlighted the rising importance of developing nations in driving clean energy adoption worldwide, and finds they are seizing the mantle of global clean energy leadership from wealthier, more developed nations.

A combination of surging electricity demand, declining technology costs, and a surge in innovative policy-making have resulted in developing nations stepping up to seize the mantle of global clean energy leadership from wealthier nations, according to a comprehensive new report published by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) as part of its annual Climatescope project.

According to the report, emerging market nations surveyed by Climatescope accounted for the majorities of clean energy capacity added, and new funds deployed, globally in 2017. Specifically, developing nations added an impressive total of 114 gigawatts (GW) worth of zero-carbon generating capacity — including 94 GW worth of wind and solar. At the same time, developing nations brought online the least amount of new coal-fired power generating capacity since at least 2006 — with new build coal falling 38% year-over-year to 48 GW, half of what was added in 2015.

“It’s been quite a turnaround,” said Dario Traum, BNEF senior associate and Climatescope project manager. “Just a few years ago, some argued that less developed nations could not, or even should not, expand power generation with zero-carbon sources because these were too expensive. Today, these countries are leading the charge when it comes to deployment, investment, policy innovation and cost reductions.”

In addition to the increasing economic viability of clean energy technologies — specifically technologies such as wind and solar — which are further bolstered by the “exceptional” natural resources boasted by many developing nations, when combined with continually declining technology equipment costs, new renewable energy projects in developing nations are regularly outcompeting new fossil fuel projects on price. This has been most evident in the 28+ GW worth of generation contracted through tenders in emerging markets in 2017.

Financing for renewable energy projects in developing nations is similarly increasing, with 54 developing nations recording investment in at least one utility-scale wind farm, and 76 countries receiving financing for solar projects of 1.5 megawatts (MW) or larger (up from 20 and 3, respectively, a year ago). Further, development banks, export credit agencies, and other traditional backers are all combining to ensure investment and project backing continues to support the development of clean technology projects in emerging nations.

“European players, in particular, have moved aggressively to finance projects, particularly in Latin America,” said BNEF head of Americas Ethan Zindler, who helped found Climatescope. “While concessional capital is still clearly required in least developed countries or in others just beginning to adopt clean energy, elsewhere private funders appear quite comfortable deploying capital at volume.”

The report further highlights the growing trend that shows developing nations are skipping the fossil fuel stage of economic development which has so plagued their more developed brethren.

“I think it’s undeniable that for an equivalent level of economic development (GDP/capita), a number of emerging markets have a much higher penetration of solar and wind than their most developed peers had,” explained Dario Traum, who spoke to me via email.

“That’s a factor of technology change but also of course of cost. Emerging markets are where renewables most frequently undercut existing power procurement cost. In particular, Latin America has a number of countries that are amongst the countries with the highest level of solar + wind penetration, often facilitated by hydro and interconnection with neighbours.

“Caveat to all that is that big manufacturing and demographic hubs in Asia haven’t yet been able to get around coal as a cheap way to power industry around the clock. But they are seeing the consequences too, in particular air pollution. So a strong support for renewables there to.”

Posted by: AGelbert

Ireland's landmark Fossil Fuel Divestment Bill passed the Seanad, or upper house, on Thursday, putting the Emerald Isle on track to become the first country in the world to divest from fossil fuel-related funds.

The bill—which requires the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund to sell off about €318 million ($361 million) investments in coal, oil, gas and peat assets over a five year period—now heads to President Michael D. Higgins for signature, where it will likely become law by the end of the year, according to the Irish Times.

Alice-Mary Higgins, an Independent Senator and the president's daughter, was jubilant about the bill's "swift passage" in the Seanad.

• There is a very short window of time to get out of pure-play oil & gas company investments without substantial losses. It is imperative to sell them now.

• It is already too late to get out of pure-play coal company investments without substantial losses. But they will lose even more money going forward.

• Utility companies which have a heavy reliance on fossil fuels are also in trouble.Diversified companies will lose money on their coal, oil, and gas portfolios, although this may not be significant enough to warrant getting out of a diversified company.

• It will remain possible to do short-term swing trading in coal, oil, and gas companies with no future, but this is inappropriately risky behavior for a conservative investor.

The Reasons

✔ Oil demand is mostly for cars & trucks and will be destroyed by electric cars & trucks.

✔Electricity will be primarily generated by solar and wind, as they will be cheaper than fossils.

✔Coal demand is mostly for electricity, is already being destroyed by natural gas, and will be further destroyed by cheap solar and wind.

✔Gas demand for heating will be destroyed by electric heat pumps, and for electricity by solar and wind.

✔The residual demand (for airplanes, steelmaking, and plastics feedstocks) will not be enough to prevent the extraction and refining companies from losing enormous amounts of money over the next couple of decades.

✔ Utilities will do badly if they bet on fossil fuels and will do well if they invest in low-priced solar, wind, and batteries.

Full Analysis

► There are three major categories of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas. I will discuss oil first, with a detour to electricity, then coal, then gas, and finally a section on the fate of utilities.

► I will go through pricing calculations and comparisons to demonstrate that the alternatives to coal, oil, and gas are either already cheaper or guaranteed to be cheaper within the next 2 years for a sufficiently large percentage of consumers to cause huge drops in fossil fuel demand over the next 10 years.

Oil

The Empirical Evidence

I and my family were heavily invested in oil and gas stocks for many decades because they were highly profitable. It didn’t cost that much to punch a hole in the ground and get a Texas “gusher,” and then the oil spouted out of the ground practically for free – but everyone bought lots of oil because all the alternatives were impractical or too expensive. So, they were good investments at the time.

In 2008, I sold them all, including my personal $384,000 worth of Exxon stock.

This was a wise decision. XOM stock is now worth about what it was when I sold it at the peak in 2008. It hasn’t gained at all. True, it did issue dividends – at a dividend yield of about 3.24%. This is well below any reasonable benchmark.

The dividend is coming out of the capital of the company. Exxon paid out more in dividends than it earned in the third quarter of 2016 (earnings 63 cents per share, dividend 75 cents per share).

The other oil majors are in similar financial trouble. Chevron is recording losses. Shell and Chevron are also paying out dividends in excess of earnings. BP and Shell have introduced scrip dividend programs in order to avoid paying out dividends in cash. All of them, including BP, are borrowing large amounts of money. Upstream businesses are losing money or barely breaking even; refinery profits are dropping; only the chemicals business is stable and it’s quite small.

The majors are, of course, much more financially secure than second-tier oil companies like Anadarko and Devon, which lose money routinely.

So much for the empirical evidence that they’re bad investments. I can also explain why.

Posted by: AGelbert

Panel trends have a way of quickly becoming mainstream. IHS Markit predicted that passivated emitter rear cells (PERC) technology would go from a blip in the market in 2014 to mainstream by 2020—a prediction confirmed by anyone looking at panel models released this year. PERC is here to stay.

Different cell dimensions. Source: ITRPV

The next technology on that mainstream path is half-cell designs. The ninth edition of the International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaic (ITRPV) predicts the market share of half cells will grow from 5% in 2018 to nearly 40% in 2028.

Half-cell modules have solar cells that are cut in half, which improves the module’s performance and durability. Traditional 60- and 72-cell panels will have 120 and 144 half-cut cells, respectively. When solar cells are halved, their current is also halved, so resistive losses are lowered and the cells can produce a little more power. Smaller cells experience reduced mechanical stresses, so there is a decreased opportunity for cracking. Half-cell modules have higher output ratings and are more reliable than traditional panels.

“When considering a solar installation, the idea of ‘more’ is at the forefront—produce more energy, save (or earn) more money and do more good for the environment,” said Cemil Seber, VP of global marketing and product management for module manufacturer REC. “In the case of rooftops where there is a limited amount of space available, using solar panels with half-cut cell technology can help.”

REC is a half-cell pioneer, first introducing the design in 2014. The company’s TwinPeak half-cell module series effectively turns each panel into two twin panels. Since the cells are smaller, inter-cell spacing doesn’t have to be as wide and they can be placed closer together. This allows REC to separate the panel into two. Independent upper and lower module halves lead to improved shading response. If the bottom half of a module is shaded, the top half will still perform.

REC has pushed the boundaries with half-cell designs in polycrystalline modules. REC’s half-cell PERC polycrystalline modules have reached 300 W, and they can compete with full-cell modules in the more efficient monocrystalline class. The company has been so impressed by the advantages of half-cells, it is transitioning all its manufacturing lines to the new technology.

“Since 2014, REC has been continuously transferring its production lines to half-cut cell technology,” Seber said. “Today, all but one of our module production lines in Singapore have been equipped for half-cut cell technology.”

During the 2018 tradeshow swing, REC released its new N-Peak series of modules, the company’s first stab at monocrystalline half-cells for even higher efficiency and output—up to 330 W in a traditional 60-cell footprint.

Other manufacturers have also started half-cell designs in the monocrystalline class. LONGi Solar recently exceeded 360 W in testing with its 120-cell half-cut monocrystalline PERC module. Hanwha Q CELLS received the Intersolar Award 2018 Photovoltaics category for its Q.PEAK DUO-G5 solar module—a 120-half-cell, six-busbar monocrystalline module. The Hanwha module uses round wires instead of flat ribbons for busbars to reduce shading on the cells. Hanwha also has half-cut designs for the 72-cell market, although in polycrystalline. Its Q. PLUS DUO L-G5.2 is a polycrystalline half-cell module with a maximum output of 370 W.

Half-cut cells (Photo from Hanwha Q CELLS SPI 2017 booth)

Since half-cell designs are the hottest trend right now, a manufacturer just has to update a few things on its lines to keep up. The two challenges with switching full-cell manufacturing to half-cell designs is the cell cutting and the stringing process. Since half-cells are usually PERC cells to begin with, the cell itself is quite fragile. Laser-cutting the cell down the middle without cracking it is a delicate process. Half-cells often use four or more busbars. Stringing these very narrow connection strips across a smaller footprint requires the use of precise equipment. Junction boxes are also different on half-cell modules. Most brands use multiple, smaller junction boxes so each module half can function as its own. Otherwise, half-cell module assembly is like full-cell production.

Since half-cell modules produce more power and are more efficient and reliable than their full-cell counterparts, their use can lead to time and money savings for the installer.

“By delivering more power per square meter, fewer panels are required to generate the same power,” Seber said. “This means quicker installation times and the need for fewer components such as clamps and racks—all of which reduces the overall costs.”

Posted by: AGelbert

Lies, Lies, & More Lies: LawrenceSolomon🦕 Is Scared & So Is The Fossil Fuel Industry

October 21st, 2018 by Joshua S Hill

It should come as no surprise that the fossil fuel industry has many defenders🐵 🐒 🦍 willing to step up to the plate and bat for them — it is, after all, a multi-billion-dollar industry with long-standing relationships and a desire not to collapse into infamy and oblivion.

The simple reality is that, for a large part of the planet, the fossil fuel industry is on its last legs. Developed nations are wholesale turning to renewable energy — either by federal impetus or through the work of sub-national players such as local governments and corporations — and developing nations are looking to renewable energy as a means to jump over the fossil fuel step altogether, avoiding the need to build up costly nationwide infrastructure and preventing further emissions increases.

Fear & Ignorance

This new reality, however, is apparently difficult for some people to comprehend. Most recently, BP CEO Bob Dudley, speaking as the “Petroleum Executive of the Year” at the Oil & Money conference in London, raised his fears of the global divestment and disclosure movements that are impacting the fossil fuel industry, suggesting that they “could lead to bad outcomes.” His rationale, however, was based on faulty assumptions and blind ignorance of the realities.

BP 🦕 CEO Bob Dudley 😈

However, Dudley can at least be given credit for admitting the need for change, and presenting a path forward which he claimed was “not a call for business as usual” and one that “requires significant and rapid disruption to our industry.”

The same credit cannot be given to Lawrence Solomon, however, a columnist for Canada’s National Post section (which bears the name Financial Post after the business newspaper of the same name) and the Executive Director of Energy Probe, the consumer and energy research team of Canada’s Energy Probe Research Foundation.

Writing an op-ed recently for the Financial Post, Solomon set aside any dignity or professional integrity he may once have grasped to and penned what can only be described as a hit-piece on the renewable energy industry with all the internal consistency of a wet tissue. Solomon’s article — entitled “Trudeau stands alone as Canada — and the world — abandons green energy” — ran with the witty lede, “Wind and solar have become the fossils of the energy industry; oil, gas and coal remain the fuels of the future.” An entire fact-check article could be written about the opening paragraph on its own — not bad, considering it boasts only 109 words in four sentences.

Solomon’s article was brought to our attention here at CleanTechnica by a frustrated reader who asked that we investigate the claims Solomon made in his piece — described by the reader as “so untruthful and so far from reality that I think it deserves to be called out.”

More than simply “calling out” Lawrence Solomon, however, I think it’s worth being completely upfront and honest about Solomon and his opinions — and opinions they are, make no mistake about it, in the true spirit of the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of the word — “A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge” — for, it would appear that Solomon’s opinions have never even heard of the concept of “facts” and “knowledge.”

Lies, Lies, & MoreLies

To be fair, the issue is not so much with Lawrence Solomon in and of himself, rather, he is simply representative of a number of such pundits who occupy their own little space of real estate in magazines, newspapers, and on television the world over.

Solomon is in no way particularly special for the absurdity of his views, but he serves as a convenient example of the types of lies that are spread, and the way in which people opposed to renewable energy and in denial about global warming make their arguments.

In his opinion article, Lawrence Solomon attempts to make the argument that renewable energy is not only on the back foot around the world, but that it is in full retreat. To support this argument, Solomon refers to several pieces of so-called evidence which he has pulled kicking and screaming out of context. I’ll handle them one at a time.

China

Solomon claims that China has “begun to throw in the towel by cutting subsidies to renewables, an augur of the demise of investment in its renewables sector.” Solomon also points to recent reporting from green campaigners CoalSwarm which claimed that 259 gigawatts (GW) of new coal capacity are currently under construction.

Satellite visualization from Carbon Tracker

While Solomon accurately reported the findings from CoalSwarm’s new satellite imagery report — which showed construction ongoing at coal plants across the country, the result of a permitting surge between late-2014 and early-2016 — he incorrectly blames the reason for China’s decision to cut subsidies to renewables.

It’s important to remember the context of China’s current reliance on coal. The new capacity currently under construction is the result of local authorities approving new projects, and actually flies in the face of China’s Central Government’s decisions to halt construction of new coal-fired power plants. Toward the end of 2016 and over the first few months of 2017, China announced the cancellation of 30 large coal-fired power plants amounting to 17 gigawatts (GW), followed soon after by the cancellation of 104 more under-construction and planned coal projects amounting to 120 GW. In March of this year, a report showed that the development of new coal plants in 2017 had declined in China, thanks in part to the Central Government’s decision to suspend construction across hundreds of projects.

Unfortunately, CoalSwarm’s recent report might suggest that China’s Central Government no longer has the control it once had to make these sweeping cuts, but a report published earlier this month by Carbon Tracker shows that 40% of China’s coal plants are already losing money and that the country could save nearly $390 billion by closing plants instead of keeping them operational.

Further, it’s important to look at the whole of what is happening in China. In September, China’s National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) wrote a draft policy that paved the way to increase the country’s renewable energy target from 20% to 35% by 2030.

Later that same month, China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) issued draft guidelines that would look to phase out power generation subsidies — just as Solomon highlighted, except, the intention of the decision was to provide the country’s renewable energy sector with further technological and policy support so that those technologies can compete against other technologies on their own. Specifically, the draft guidelines seek to incentivize renewable energy technologies in regions where they can operate without help from government subsidies.

“The reason China’s cutting subsidy is mainly because of the huge deficit in the national renewable subsidy fund,” explained Yali Jiang, a solar analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance, who spoke to me via email. “By the end of 2017, the deficit amounted around $19 billion including those for wind and solar projects. As a result, the government expects to, for instance, restrict new solar installations that require national subsidy immediately.”

“China’s solar installation contracted in 3Q due to the policy change,” Jiang added. “The grid-connected PV capacity halved in July and August compared with last year. But the country remains to be the largest investor in clean energy in 3Q ($26.7 billion), a fraction above the same period of 2017.”

Far from being “an augur of the demise of investment in its renewables sector,” as Solomon so dramatically put it, China’s decision to cut subsidies is actually based in a desire to minimize the financial strain caused by subsidizing new power generation, while at the same time providing technological and political support that will help renewable energy compete on its own — much as it does in other parts of the world, such as throughout Europe and North America.

Europe

Lawrence Solomon, far from being happy with one example, decided to add another to the mix, explaining that, “With the cutting of subsidies to renewables in the [European Union], investment last year dropped to less than half of its peak six years earlier.”

Again, Solomon correctly looked at the chart, sourced from Bloomberg New Energy Finance and highlighted by the World Economic Forum in May of 2018 — an article, mind you, which highlights the success of the investment in China’s renewable energy sector, and betrays Solomon’s contention that China has suffered a decline in investment in its renewables sector (made literally the sentence beforehand).

While it is true that investment in Europe’s renewable energy industry has fallen off in recent times, it’s doubly important to look at the region’s capacity installations over the same time. Between 2011 and 2017 — the six-year period Solomon highlighted — generation from renewable electricity across the 28 Member States of the European Unionskyrocketed.

Complete renewable energy capacity additions for Europe are difficult to come by — unsurprising, given the nature of a supranational governing body — but we can mitigate that somewhat by looking specifically at the two dominant renewable energy technologies, wind, and solar.

Annual wind energy installations across Europe have steadily ticked up each year, declining only once since 2011, in 2013.

It’s worth noting, though, that new capacity additions for 2018 are on a worrying downward trend, as seen by half-year figures published by WindEurope in July.

Europe’s solar industry has similarly suffered from recent investment figures, as can be seen in the graph below, published by SolarPower Europe in June (as part of a global outlook).

Evolution of Global Annual Solar PV Installed Capacity 2000-2017

So while from a certain point of view, Lawrence Solomon can claim that Europe’s clean energy investment has fallen, resulting in lower solar capacity additions and moderate wind additions, it’s worth seeing this in light of the whole. Solar has begun growing again across Europe — with a total of 9.2 GW worth of new capacity added in 2017, a 30% increase on the year before — and offshore wind continues to increase its share. Europe was also one of the first regions to double-down on solar, and accounts for 28% of the global total, with a total of 114 GW worth of installed capacity.

Additionally, even though investments have decreased, this does not necessarily speak to a larger fall-off for the renewable energy industry. Rather, as technologies such as solar PV and onshore wind mature, their costs have decreased, which means that less money is needed to build even more capacity.

Lawrence Solomon may have struck closer to the mark with this particular example, but it does not serve to bolster his argument any, considering the impact of Brexit and the UK’s shift away from solar towards wind, the declining cost of mature technologies, and natural market dynamics and political malfeasance from politicians who share Solomon’s point of view.

Japan

Investment in Japan’s clean energy industry has indeed slowed since 2016 — essentially falling off a financial cliff at the end of 2015. Much like China, however, Japan’s situation is not as clear-cut as a graph might show.

“After years of record-breaking investment driven by some of the world’s most generous feed-in tariffs, China and Japan are cutting back on building new large-scale projects and shifting towards digesting the capacity they have already put in place,” said Justin Wu, head of Asia for BNEF, said in January of 2017.

“China is facing slowing power demand and growing wind and solar curtailment. The government is now focused on investing in grids and reforming the power market so that the renewables in place can generate to their full potential. In Japan, future growth will come not from utility-scale projects but from rooftop solar systems installed by consumers attracted by the increasingly favorable economics of self-consumption.”

It’s ironic, however, that Solomon decided to use Japan as throwaway proof of “a worldwide trend rejecting renewables.” If he had made the argument even a year ago, it might have held more weight, but given recent moves by Japan’s government, and corporations and utilities within Japan, it loses all importance.

In July, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, better known as TEPCO, announced that it intends to pursue the development of between 6 and 7 GW worth of renewable energy capacity worth tens of billions of dollars in an intentional move away from nuclear power. Speaking to Nikkei, TEPCO’s president Tomoaki Kobayakawa announced his company will look to develop 6 to 7 GW of renewable energy across Japan and overseas in a move expected to yield 100 billion yen ($8.98 billion) in profit. “We must gain a competitive advantage in renewable energy,” he said.

Meanwhile, in September, Japan’s Electric Power Development Co., better known as J-Power, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with French multinational electric utility ENGIE to collaborate on power projects, specifically offshore wind and floating offshore wind projects — a further sign of Japan’s turn away from nuclear, and specifically towards contending with Taiwan as an offshore wind hub. And only last week, the Fitch Group published a forecast which expected Japan to add 17 GW worth of new solar capacity by the end of 2020, before the sector begins to slow.

For Lawrence Solomon, Japan also does not prove his belief that renewable energy is on the back foot.

The UK, et al

I could go on. Solomon points to Germany, the UK, and Australia as further proof that the world is turning away from renewable energy. While both Germany and Australia serve as good examples of this, they are about the only two countries that do — and only from a national point of view, with sub-state actors serving to pick up where the nation’s governments left off (or, in Australia’s case, never picked up to begin with).

Solomon’s citing the UK as an example of a flagging renewable energy industry, however, truly beggars belief. Not only is the UK home to one of the world’s most persistent and dominant renewable energy countries, Scotland, but the UK is also the world’s offshore wind energy leader, boasting a portfolio of projects in operation, under construction, or in development, of 35.2 GW.

Agreed, the UK’s investment is likely to fall, a point made by the Green Alliance in January of 2017, analyzing the UK Government’s own numbers. The government has proven lackluster at best when it comes to preparing for a post-Brexit world, and it has thoroughly mishandled commitments to various technologies (onshore wind and solar, in particular). However, it’s important to look at the long-term — the Green Alliance’s analysis only looks to 2020, and a July announcement from the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy could mitigate some of these short-term losses, by setting a timeline for new offshore wind auctions starting from 2021.

“The renewables sector in the UK has seen pretty dire policy from government: solar and onshore wind projects have been effectively blocked, despite the fact that they’re now the cheapest form of new power,” explained Dustin Benton, Policy Director at Green Alliance. “By contrast, dirty power stations, supported by the UK’s flawed capacity market, have seen several hundred million pounds of government contracts over the past few years.”

Image Credit: MHI Vestas

“The exception to this generally gloomy picture is in offshore wind: despite irregular auctions, the sector has reduced prices by two-thirds over the past two years, and the government has committed to procuring around 16 GW of new offshore wind during the 2020s, putting the country on track for 30 GW by 2030 – a level consistent with meeting the UK’s carbon targets.”

It’s also worth remembering that Great Britain currently boasts its lowest ever share of fossil fuels in its energy mix, accounting for only 41% of total generation, down from 71% only 7 years ago.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Lawrence? Lie!

An argument against renewable energy and climate change is not complete, however, without mentioning the biggest elephant in the room — the United States. Solomon reserves an entire paragraph for the US but barely manages to come close to the truth.

Solomon sets the scene — the Democrats are out of power and Donald Trump is in, and quickly moves to exit from the Paris Agreement. What did the country manage to do with this new paradigm shift?

Right out of the gate, Solomon … well, he pretty much rushes headlong into the gate. Solomon starts out by claiming that the US has revived its coal industry. One wonders exactly where to start on this. In January, Reuters obtained preliminary US government data which showed that the coal industry continues to shed jobs. In February, figures published by the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) revealed that not only had there been no new coal capacity added during 2017 (and only 3 units in 2016) but that coal’s total share of generating capacity has declined by 17.83% over the past five years. In fact, according to figures published in June by the US Energy Information Administration, coal has dropped to providing only 27% of total electricity generation.

The cause for coal’s steep decline? According to researchers from North Carolina State University and the University of Colorado Boulder writing in May, the responsible party is not renewable energy but is in fact the decline in natural gas prices. And only this week, the White House — the very center of Donald Trump’s power — has reportedly shelved a plan to bail out the coal (and nuclear) sectors.

The final point to make is, possibly, the most absurd. Written and positioned as if it was the final nail in Solomon’s argument, he writes that “The once-powerful United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, formerly a fixture in the news, is defanged and forgotten, having lost its US funding and its relevance.”

Solomon’s article was published on September 28, only 11 days before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a report warning that limiting global warming to 1.5°C will “require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” Putting aside the fact that the IPCC works in long-term cycles and is not beholden to publish material regularly (nor has it ever), Solomon must have regretted that particular sentence.

Abandoning Truth

It takes something special to be able to so blatantly and casually lie in public as Lawrence Solomon manages. To so clearly and repeatedly mishandle the facts and misconstrue the evidence requires either an almost champion level of ignorance, or a complete disregard for the truth. Solomon squeezes at least a dozen lies and half-truths into only 750 words — that’s at least one every 62 words.

Is the global renewable energy industry on the back foot? No — in fact, in many parts of the world, it is progressing faster than ever before, and well above any other energy technology. The industry is maturing, however, and with that naturally comes some bumpy patches — stagnation, political intervention and misappropriation, and economic fluctuations; to think otherwise is naive.

But to think that these bumps in the road represent some global shift away from renewable energy is to ignore all common sense and historical evidence.Renewable energy isn’t going away, nor is it declining in popularity. It is the future — not just because we need it to be, but because it is economically better.

Posted by: AGelbert

“We have made a very firm decision not to go forward with the coal power plant, because we’re required by our bylaws to go with the lowest-cost option, and renewables have now come below the cost of coal,” said World Bank President Jim Kim on the financial institution’s decision to withdraw support from the controversial Kosovo coal plant.

Posted by: AGelbert

Against the Odds: Climate Innovation on the Risein Oil-Dominated 🦕 Regions

October 14th, 2018 by Sponsored Content

By Diana Zaharia

SNIPPET:

Bridging the Gap

The Paris targets show that we need to leave more than 80% of known fossil fuel reserves underground. However, few companies are truly committed to leaving the coal, oil, and gas in the earth, and next to zero nations are willing to make them do so. So how do green and cleantech entrepreneurs in these regions bring their solutions to market and solve the problem of energy access by using renewables?

Part of the solution is initiated by the world’s largest green business ideas competition, called ClimateLaunchpad*, and supported by EIT Climate-KIC, a body of the European Union. In recent years the platform opened up for entrepreneurs and green business enthusiasts in countries like Nigeria, Kazakhstan, India, Malaysia, and Azerbaijan. And the numbers are astonishing.

Every year, new countries join the global network, now reaching close to 4,000 green business ideas submitted globally over the past five years, currently running in 50 locations in 45 countries. This year the Global Grand Final will take place in Edinburgh, Scotland, on 1-2 November. On top of choosing the 2018 winners, it promises to unlock a global conversation with 700 people about fixing climate change.

Fertile Grounds for Green Tech Innovators

For the second year in a row, Azerbaijan has landed in the top three of countries to enter the highest numbers of green business ideas in ClimateLaunchpad. And by doing so they are outperforming countries like England, Germany, Norway, The Netherlands in Western Europe, and Australia.

Azerbaijan is one of the birthplaces of the oil industry, with a history strongly linked to the fortunes of petroleum. But these days the country also produces some of the brightest young entrepreneurs, green tech innovators, and game changers.✨🌞

Reyhan Jamalova

Take Reyhan Jamalova, the CEO and founder of Rainergy, the Azerbaijan start-up that produces electricity from rainwater. Reyhan is 15 years old and she was 14 when she joined ClimateLaunchpad. She was recently named one of the most promising entrepreneurs on the Forbes 30-Under-30 list.

Her technology is a smart generator that harvests energy from rain. Piezo electric crystals have the unique property to convert external pressure on the crystal into electric current. When the rain falls on the piezo electric crystals, the pressure of the raindrops generates small amounts of energy. The initial prototype of Rainergy produces 22W of power and feeds up to 22 LED lamps. While piezo electric rain generators produce only 25 micro-watts of power, the Rainergy model is much more efficient. Also it stores energy in the accumulator with the help of batteries, so that it can still be used when there is no rain. Moreover, Rainergy reduces the amount of CO2 emissions to 10 g per kWh during the production of the electricity. That is very low compared to the other current alternative energy solutions.

“I can say that as a 14 year old student I didn’t know anything about building a business. During ClimateLaunchpad I learned a lot about it, met amazing teams, and expanded my network,” says Reyhan. “We have applied for patent and the process continues. Also, we applied with The Republic of Azerbaijan State Agency on Renewable and Alternative Energy and we are still negotiating our conditions. Our main goal now is to increase the efficiency of the product and develop it further.”

Another example is CO2atalyser. This startup founded by Professor Yusif Abdullayev joined ClimateLaunchpad in Azerbaijan in 2017 to transform research into a business. Efficient conversion of CO2 being a key challenge for the chemistry community, but Prof. Abdullayev and his team developed a product that can save up to 85% in CO2 emissions for every factory using it. The technology is a unique catalyst that enables higher efficiency and long-term stability compared to traditional metal catalysts, such as nano-gold, platinum, and ruthenium.

Posted by: AGelbert

Optimistic Energy Source Use Projection prepared by Agelbert Five Years Ago:

Agelbert Mea Culpa: The ice free summer did not occur in 2017. It seems that will occur a few years later than my original estimates.

Despite the lack of an ice free summer in 2017 (or 2018) to spur the governments of the world to mitigate global warming, I am heartened by the increasing pressure from the IPCC, which is finally getting real about how dire the Catastrophic Climate Change threat is, and how urgent it is to to GTF off of Hydrocarbons for energy by transitioning to 100% Renewable Energy.

If, and that is a mighty big if, the goverments of the world manage to follow the transition timeline on this graphic I prepared in 2013, humanity might just get through this.

On the other hand, if they keep doing the bidding of the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn, we are done.

The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy Inventionssuppressing, Climate Trashing, human healthdepleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!

Similarly, the entire blockchain concept is a solution to a computer science problem from the 1970s that was formalized in 1982 as the Byzantine Generals’ Problem. At heart, it’s a question of how a bunch of systems can collaborate with trust when malicious actors 😈 👹 are trying to disrupt the system. Proof-of-work and proof-of-stake are different solutions on top of blockchain to that problem.

Posted by: AGelbert

In phase 1, renewables played a niche role in our grids, below 10% of total consumption. To some extent we could just ignore the renewables — they integrated themselves. We still had to speed along a fast learning curve, since weather forecast instruments had to be developed and the company had to manage all billing and accounting data from new energy sources. But overall, it wasn’t very important whether or not some mistakes occurred because the overall amount of renewables in our electricity system was still comparatively small.

In phase 2, renewables became a major component of our electricity system. We moved up to 40% of the yearly consumption covered by renewables. We had in this second stage to review all our system control processes, to develop tailor-made and more accurate weather forecasts. We were faced with changing regulations, process changes to act closer to real-time and to start steering renewables infeed. We intensified the real-time cooperation with distribution grids and neighbouring grids. With the increase of decentralized production that is also often far away from consumer centers, in our case especially wind energy, electricity has to be transported over much longer distances. That’s why we had to start important grid reinforcement projects — inside our area and to interconnect us better with our neighboring regions. Grid reinforcement provides more capacity to exchange electricity and unleashes additional flexibility potential. That is another fundamental lesson.

In the third phase, above 40%, renewables become the dominant players. They now set the scene, new market products closer to real-time are needed, ancillary services have more and more to be provided by renewables, and finally a new market design is progressively needed. The demand side, the customers, become more important and can offer flexibility. In our control area, new types of large-scale storage become an issue when we are around 60–70% renewables. And we expect then also electricity, heat and gas sectors to converge progressively.

Germany is doing well. They could do better, but considering what the other highly industrialized countries are NOT doing, Germany is way ahead in the Transistion to Renewable Energy. ✨💫

My comment is about the USA but it applies to all countries on the planet.

The most important fact about fossil fuel energy products that the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn Corporations 😈 go out of their way to hide from we-the-customers is that their profit margin is based on volume sales. Yes, they get the subsidy welfare queen gravy train on top of that, but the margin is the "ball" you need to keep your eye on. 🧐

Renewable Energy is eating away at that slim margin the fossil fuelers rely on through demand destruction. What the fossil fuelers will never admit is that you do not need to destroy 100% of the demand for polluting energy products to bankrupt the polluters. Because the polluters absolutely MUST HAVE high volume in order to make a profit, all we need to do is enable Renewable Energy to destroy between 10% and 20% of the demand.

Some will find that hard to believe. 👀 ⁉️ 🤔

Well, if you think that is baloney, I suggest you check out Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute. Amory published "Reinventing Fire" (over 5 years ago), the peer reviewed road map to 100% Renewable Energy. In so many words backed by hard energy facts and decades of data, he makes that crystal clear. The hyped happy talk about fossil fuels has always disguised the reality that their business model is far more fragile than they let on. The RMI knows that and has worked tirelessly to let people and fossil fuel corporations know (yes, even saying that to Shell!) that Renewable Energy is the only option for a viable biosphere AND a sustainable energy business model.

Renewable Energy is running the polluters out of business. That is why the polluters spend so much money desperately trying to convince us that they are our "loyal servants just doing what we ask them to do".

Look at this map of Federally owned land (and ocean areas). Imagine the VAST amount of Renewable Energy (geothermal, solar, wind, etc.) that can be tapped (FAR MORE than we actually need to supply all U.S. energy needs!) for the purpose of eliminating all fossil fuel use, but is, INSTEAD, reserved FOR Hydrocarbon Hellspawn 🦕🦖 PRIVATIZED PROFITCorporate exploitation:🤬

This video will give you and idea of the vast amount of geothermal energy in those same areas waiting to be tapped:

Posted by: AGelbert

Fossil fuel companies own our governments, so the number one goal of the movement is to weaken their grip and and then to expose the failed business model of the industry. We want them to re-direct investments to renewables, says Ellen Dorsey, Executive Director of the Wallace Global Fund

Fossil fuel divestment has become a global phenomenon. This week, the Global Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement released a new report showcasing an incredible growth in scale and impact of the movement. According to this report, close to 1000 institutional investors with $6.24 trillion in assets have committed to divest from fossil fuels. This is up from $52 billion just four years ago.

This week we have been covering the protests of the environmental activists and the California Governor Jerry Brown’s Global Climate Action Summit. The protesters that are on the streets are demanding that their leaders play their role in accelerating policy efforts to curb global warming. To discuss all of this with me today is Ellen Dorsey. She is at the summit, and she’s joining us from San Francisco.

Ellen Dorsey is the executive director of the Wallace Global Fund, a private foundation focused on progressive social change in the field of the environment, democracy, human rights, and corporate accountability. Ellen Dorsey was awarded the 2016 inaugural Nelson Mandela and Graca Machel’s Brave Philanthropy Award. Ellen, I thank you so much for joining us.

ELLEN DORSEY: Thank you, Sharmini, for having me.

SHARMINI PERIES: Ellen, now, obviously you are celebrating the monumental achievements of the movement and the successes the divestment movement has had. And of course your role has been very important in all of this. So highlight for us the achievements of the movement, and what is actually logged in that report.

ELLEN DORSEY: Sure. So just this week movement leaders released a global state of the divestment movement report, announced new commitments by investors to move their assets out of fossil fuels as an ethical, financial, and fiduciary imperative, and into climate solutions, as well- investing as well as divesting- and issued a call to action to be carried out through the proceedings of the Global Climate Action Summit.

In short, four years ago we held the first press conference in September of 2014. And at that time it marked that there were $52 billion in assets under management that had already divested from fossil fuels as a result of advocacy begun by students just three years earlier. And now, four years later, this week we announced that nearly a thousand institutional investors have committed to divest from fossil fuels with $6.24 trillion in assets under management. That’s a nearly 12,000 percent increase from that first announcement.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Now, Ellen, you’re not talking about just divesting. You’re also talking about investing in good things. Tell us about that part of the report.

ELLEN DORSEY: Not all institutions that have committed to divest have made explicit commitments to investment, but many have. For instance, my sector, philanthropy, we organize something called Divest Invest Philanthropy. We now have over 175 foundations that have committed to divest from all fossil fuels and invest 5 percent of our investment portfolios in climate solutions, including what I think is very important, is investing in universal energy access to make sure that the billion-plus without electricity today are included in the energy transition and are reached with safe, clean, and affordable energy, and also to invest in the just transition. We should be putting our capital into extractive communities, and to support dislocated extractive workers.

On the call to action, the call to action that we released on Monday included a call for all investors to be putting 5 percent of their investments into climate solutions to rapidly scale renewables, which we must do to be able to reach that 2 degrees Celsius limit of warming. We also have to invest in the solutions, as well as divest from the problem.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Ellen, you were talking about universities and students engaged in this movement, which has been a critical part. Give us a sense of how this movement grew; how it started, and how it grew.

ELLEN DORSEY: Yeah, it’s a great story. In 2011, the first group of students working on fossil fuel divestment emerged at Swarthmore University. In the summer of 2011, students from about eight campuses, along with four or five environmental organizations, came together to plan campaigns on college campuses. Started with 8, grew to 40. In the interim, an organization called Carbon Tracker released its analysis about the impending carbon bomb, the kind of stranded asset risk analysis, and the idea that just like there was a tech bubble, there would be a carbon bubble.

And so Bill McKibben brilliantly linked these divestment campaigns with this new analysis by Carbon Tracker, and released an article called Do the Math in Rolling Stone. It lit a match. 40 campuses went to 400 overnight. And then the movement started spreading to faith, to cities, to pension funds, to philanthropy, my sector, health groups, hospitals, and now it’s reached the financial mainstream. Large-scale insurers, large-scale pension funds have all been committing to divest. Some for ethical reasons, some for ethical and financial reasons, some for purely financial reasons and to uphold their fiduciary duty. So it’s exploded, grown like wildfire around the world.

SHARMINI PERIES: Ellen, speaking of the global effect. Now, various city mayors and governors like Governor Brown has taken this issue up. Now Mayor of New York Bill de Blasio and London Mayor Sadiq Khan just published an op-ed in The Guardian calling on all cities to divest from fossil fuels. This is incredible, it’s having a domino effect all over the world, which is wonderful. Tell us more about it.

ELLEN DORSEY: It’s unbelievably exciting to watch. You know, I’ve been an activist for many decades. Hate to say how many. And I consider myself a little bit of a student of social movements. And this movement is now a fully- a full-blown global social movement. It’s hydra-headed. It’s not coordinated by any one institution. It’s made up of individuals that have called upon institutions that they have a relationship with, a university, their faith group, their pension fund, their retirement accounts, and advocated for those, you know, institutional investors to divest from fossil fuels. And it’s exploded globally. It’s in many countries in the world, North and South.

And what’s been fascinating is now to see how cities and governments are grabbing on as a result of advocacy and grassroots pressure, not doing this just on their own, or now committing to divest. The government of Ireland has committed to divest its national fund. And now the mayors of London and New York both committing to divest and invest are launching a new forum, a Divest Invest Cities forum, calling on mayors all over the world to join them to move their assets out of fossil fuels and invest in the clean energy economy that will produce jobs in their cities, in their- in their boroughs, and et cetera. So it has exploded. It’s like, just wildfire.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Ellen, here are some challenges that the movement is facing. Some progressive economists at the Political Economy Research Institute, PERI, which is a progressive-oriented research house at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, published a study in April that concluded that fossil fuel divestment campaigns have not been that effective at significantly reducing CO2 emissions, and that they are not likely to become more effective over time. Now, it also found that divestment does not have a major impact on stock market prices of fossil fuel companies. What is your response to that?

ELLEN DORSEY: Well, I’m open minded and respect different opinions and different ways of analyzing the problem. First I would say that this movement has a kind of complex theory of change, if you’ll let me break apart a bit.

First and foremost, it’s build- the purpose of the fossil fuel divestment movement initially was to build a global climate movement. Prior to the early days of divestment there was not a climate movement. There were pockets of advocacy around the world, but we didn’t have a people’s movement, nor did we have a global people’s movement. So calling for divestment and calling for institutions to divest their assets from fossil fuels is something of a tactic that any activists in any part of the world could do. And so it was first and foremost a way to build power and to focus on the problem.

Prior to the call for divestment, all of the activists around the world and environmental advocates in general were calling for policy change. The problem is that the fossil fuel industry owned governments, and prevented action on policy. So the number one goal of the movement was to take away the social license of the industry to operate, and to weaken its grip over the political process. And I think that is absolutely essential first and foremost, and it is starting to do that.

Secondly, it’s about exposing the failed business model of the fossil fuel industry. You know, really pulling back the black curtain on what the industry, on the worms inside, as it were, and the problems with the industry so that investors would begin to withdraw their capital.

And then third, it’s about capitalizing the solutions. We can’t actually get off of fossil fuels unless we grow the alternatives. And by growing the alternatives and making renewables cost competitive, that is hurting the the bottom line of the industry. And the industry is starting to hurt as a result of this. In fact, even Shell Oil in their annual report cited the divestment movement as a material risk to its investors. Now, to me that tells you that they know that this is threatening them, threatening their core business model. And as well it is threatening their grip over the political process, which will enable us to regulate that carbon, which is the thing that will bring the emissions down fastest.

So a complicated answer to that question, but I’m not surprised that we don’t see dramatic reductions in emissions right now, because we’re building a longer-term movement against the most powerful industry in the world.

SHARMINI PERIES: Ellen, now, the researchers recommended that the environmental activists, instead of directing their energy into divestment, should instead direct their efforts to drive down fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. So what do you make of that?

ELLEN DORSEY: Well, first of all, divestment is not the only thing that’s going to get us to what we need. So absolutely, we should be driving down consumption. I don’t disagree with that at all. But reducing consumption is not going to change the problem, the core problem, that at this point the industry has been so powerful it has worked against regulation of carbon. And so we have to do- we have to drive down consumption where we can. We have to embolden politicians to take regulatory action. But we as individuals can use the lever of finance as a people’s lever of social change, and all those factors together will work hand in hand to help us transition off the dependence on the fossil fuels and into a clean energy economy.

That, too, is going to have its own challenges. We need to fight to make sure that the renewable industry isn’t creating environmental harms and human rights violations, as well. So you know, we’re always in struggle for a better world. But this struggle right now to get off of fossil fuels is absolutely urgent, and we have very very little time to waste.

SHARMINI PERIES: Ellen, you are in this unique position of being able to go to the protest, walk the streets with civil society actors and activists, and be a part of the movement, but you also spoke yesterday at the summit, and you also have access to the decisionmakers, the policymakers, those who are all positioned to make a real difference by way of policy and adopting good comprehensive plans for the world. But you are also up against corporations in these sites of, you know, talking about these very important issues for the world. How do you navigate all of that?

ELLEN DORSEY: Yeah, it’s a good question. And I would say that I was extremely pleased to be out in the streets, in the protest, in the marches. Many of the organizations that my foundations support were out in the streets. And they’re calling for both more rapid action, more authentic action, and climate action that respects those most at risk. And to ensure that the people who are in the streets are actually in the suites, as well. That you know, consultation with Indigenous groups and frontline EJ groups, et cetera. So I was proud to be part of that march.

And in turn, when you go into the meeting, I feel it’s a personal responsibility to bring those messages into the discussion in every way that I can, whether it’s in participating in forums, or in my own, you know, remarks about climate finance, and that we need to be thinking about not just getting awful fossil fuels, but we need to be investing in the just transition and we need to struggle over the questions of who will own the clean energy economy of the future? Who are the beneficiaries? And how do we do things better that respect human rights and the environment as we’re structuring basically the underpinnings of the global economy, our energy. We’re structuring a new global economy with this transition off of fossil fuels, and so much is at stake.

So it’s important to bring the leverage of the street and the organizing and the activists into those discussions, and also to speak truth to power when the corporations are sitting in the room with you, and the government officials that are slow walking this transition. It’s important to speak with authenticity and, and often courage.

SHARMINI PERIES: And Ellen Dorsey, thank you for doing that on our behalf and on behalf of humanity. I thank you so much for joining us today.

ELLEN DORSEY: Thank you.

SHARMINI PERIES: And thank you for joining us here on The Real News Network.

California Governor Edmund “Jerry” Brown on Monday signed Senate Bill 100 into law, setting in place a 100% renewable electricity target for the state by 2045, and doubled down on his clean energy commitment by issuing an executive order establishing a new target to achieve carbon neutrality over the same time frame.

Less than a fortnight after the California State Assembly passed Senate Bill 100 (SB-100) by a margin of 43 to 32, the State’s Governor has signed the bill into law, confirming the words of the bill’s author, State Senator Kevin de León, last month: “When it comes to fighting climate change and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, California won’t back down.”

Given his past history in advocating for renewable energy and environmental policies, it is unsurprising Governor Brown acted so quickly in signing this bill into law. “This bill and the executive order put California on a path to meet the goals of Paris and beyond. It will not be easy. It will not be immediate. But it must be done,” said Governor Brown.

“In California, Democrats and Republicans know climate change is real, it’s affecting our lives right now, and unless we take action immediately – it may become irreversible,” added Senator de León on Monday. “Today, with Governor Brown’s support, California sent a message to the rest of the world that we are taking the future into our own hands; refusing to be the victims of its uncertainty. Transitioning to an entirely carbon-free energy grid will create good-paying jobs, ensure our children breathe cleaner air and mitigate the devastating impacts of climate change on our communities and economy.”

Specifically, SB-100 serves to advance California’s existing Renewables Portfolio Standard and increases the state’s targets to 50% by 2025, 60% by 2030, and 100% by 2045.

“California is committed to doing whatever is necessary to meet the existential threat of climate change,” said Governor Brown in his SB 100 signing message. “This bill, and others I will sign this week, help us go in that direction. But have no illusions, California and the rest of the world have miles to go before we achieve zero-carbon emissions.”

In addition to signing SB-100 into law, Governor Brown also issued an executive order directing the state to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and net negative greenhouse gas emissions after that.

“These actions are both visionary and pragmatic, and further cement California’s position as a national and global leader on climate change,” said Dan Lashof, Director, World Resources Institute for the United States. “Planning needs to start now to allow a smooth transition to a 100% clean electricity system, avoiding stranded investments and driving better outcomes for families and businesses across California. In addition, the legislation includes mandatory interim targets that will drive continued expansion of the renewable energy industry in the near term, which already employs more than 150,000 Californians. Governor Brown also upped the ante by setting a new statewide target to achieve zero net emissions by 2045. This is a great way to kick off the Global Climate Action Summit.”

“We applaud the governor for his support to make a 100% clean energy grid a reality for our great state, and demonstrating California’s global leadership for a secure, clean, affordable energy future,” said Amisha Rai, Senior Director of California Policy for the Advanced Energy Economy (AEE). “This clean energy bill is also a big win for our economy and jobs, as we have already demonstrated here in California that we can improve our energy resources while making a positive economic impact.”

“Good organizing pays off!” crowed Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org. “So much credit is due to community groups around California that turned the fires and droughts and floods into fuel for significant climate action. While some are talking about climate solutions and green jobs, California leaders like Senator Kevin de León are making solutions real.”

Posted by: AGelbert

California lawmakers have voted to mandate that 100 percent of the state's electricity come from renewable sources by 2045. The aggressive new bill passed by the State Assembly Tuesday also requires utilities to get half of their energy from renewables by 2026, four years ahead of the current schedule.

If passed by Gov. Jerry Brown as expected, California would join Hawaii, the first state to pass an all-renewables mandate, and lawmakers say it could help influence Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and DC, which are all currently considering similar mandates. "We have to be a leader. We have to show what can be done," said Assemblyman Bill Quirk told the AP. "If we can get to 100 percent renewables, others will as well."

Posted by: AGelbert

Investment in residential solar companies took off this year, as Trump’s tariffs drive Wall Street to be more discerning with their money. While solar panel manufacturers struggle with the impact of the solar tariffs, rooftop developers such as Sunrun and Vivint Solar are faring much better as investors take the time to understand the differences among companies in the maturing industry. Contributing to the rooftop solar investment boost are state-level policies such as California’s recent mandate that all new homes include solar panels by 2020, as well as the extension of federal tax incentives. (Bloomberg)

The Midwest is a hotbed for clean energy, adding nearly 4,000 new jobs across the sector last year, according to a new analysis. While total U.S. clean energy jobs stalled, the Midwest saw five percent growth and now employs over 714,000 people in the sector — four times as many as fossil fuels. Michigan, Illinois and Ohio ranked in the top 10 nationwide for clean energy jobs, with more than 100,000 in each state. Nearly 12 percent of Midwesterners employed in the sector are veterans. (North American Windpower)

Midwest utilities are phasing out coal and investing in more wind and solar. State-mandated renewable portfolio standards are helping drive the trend, but an increasing number of utilities are setting voluntary emissions reduction targets. This month Wisconsin’s two largest public utilities raised their emissions reduction goals from 40 to 80 percent below 2005 levels by mid-century, and plan to meet the goal with more investment in renewables and natural gas. Despite these advancements, environmental advocates across the Midwest argue that utilities need to wean off of coal much sooner. (Greentech Media)

Up to 40 million EV ⚡ charging points will be installed worldwide by 2030, according to a new forecast from GTM research. The report estimates that 11 percent of new vehicle sales will be electric by then. In the U.S., California’s favorable state policies have been driving investment in charging infrastructure and helped create a network that extends up to Canada. Buildout has been slower on the East Coast, but progress is ramping up. Last week Virginia announced it will work with EVgo to build a network of charging stations across the state, using $14 million from Volkswagen settlement funds. (Greentech Media)

Posted by: AGelbert

August 8, 2018: Giant wind and solar projects are powering energy-intensive mining operations in Chile’s Atacama Desert. Wind and solar installations have reached one trillion watts, drawing in $2.3 trillion in investment over the last 40 years. Corporate purchasing of clean energy so far this year has reached 7.2 gigawatts, surpassing the record set in 2017. Auto suppliers are adapting their efforts to take advantage of the rise of electric vehicles.

Quote

"Hitting one terrawatt is a tremendous achievement for the wind and solar industries, but as far as we’re concerned, it’s just the start," said Albert Cheung, BloombergNEF’s head of analysis in London on the two industries reaching one trillion watts this year.

The latest figures published by the UK Government show that renewable and clean energy sources continue to skyrocket, hitting 29.3% and 50.1% respectively, and led by another strong year for wind energy generation.

The UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy published its annual Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics report last week — the energy sector’s “bible” — and it was good news for the renewable and clean energy industries. Depending on how you look at it and what you include, renewable energy accounted for 29.3% of all electricity generated in 2017, or clean power (renewables plus nuclear) accounted for 50.1%.

The strong year for renewable energy was led by the wind energy industry, which generated a record total of 50 terawatt-hours (TWh) for the year — half of all renewable energy generation. More specifically, onshore wind generated 29.1 TWh (or 8.6%) in 2017 and offshore wind generated 20.9 TWh (or 6.2%). Generation from hydro sources increased by 10% to 5.9 TWh, while solar generation increased by 11% to 11.5 TWh for the year.

Coal generation fell by 26.5% 👍 compared to 2016 levels and, compared to 2015 levels, decreased by 70.3% 👍. Gas generation actually decreased by 4.6% in 2017 compared to 2016, but this is only in comparison to the large increase seen in 2016, and gas still accounts for the majority of the UK’s electricity supply.

“Today’s record figures demonstrate how fast renewable energy is transforming the way we generate power to create an energy system fit for the future,” said Emma Pinchbeck, Executive Director of RenewableUK, the country’s trade body for the wind, wave, and tidal industries. “This is a radical shift, and we will see ever more low-cost renewables meeting flexible demand from homes, electric vehicles and new manufacturing processes and industries.”

“It’s great to see that the UK’s cheapest power source, onshore wind, is making such a significant contribution to the nation’s power needs. So it’s baffling that Government is still excluding new onshore wind projects from the market place. Opinion polls show that two-thirds of people think Ministers should change their current policy and allow onshore wind to go ahead where it has local support, and most Conservative voters agree with them.”

“As has been widely celebrated, we’ve seen record levels of renewable power generation,” said Léonie Greene, Director of Advocacy & New Markets for the UK Solar Trade Association. “However, behind the sunny generation statistics, the worrying detail on current solar deployment continues. DUKES data shows that overall annual solar deployment is at an eight-year low, and we are seeing annual markets of only around 200MW which is very worrying indeed.

“The data confirms the warnings from the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday that Government simply isn’t doing anything like enough to secure a policy framework that attracts decent levels of investment in clean energy. And let’s remember, when it comes to solar power, we are not asking for public support, we are simply asking for level playing fields on tax treatment and fair market access. That is not hard to deliver.”https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/31/uk-renewables-hit-29-3-in-2017-led-by-record-wind-output/

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is out with its final 2017 energy investment numbers and, for the second year in a row, more money was invested in electricity than oil and gas. Electrification spending was driven by investments in the grid. More than US $750 billion went to the electricity sector while US $715 billion was spent on oil and gas supply globally.

IEA said that global energy investment totaled US $1.8 trillion in 2017.

Renewables Down

However, overall energy spending was down 2 percent over the previous year and renewables and energy efficiency investments combined fell 3 percent from 2016 numbers and the agency said that investments in energy efficiency and renewables could fall again this year.

For instance, investment in renewable power, which accounted for two-thirds of power generation spending, dropped 7 percent in 2017. Recent policy changes in China linked to support for the deployment of solar PV raise the risk of a slowdown in investment this year. As China accounts for more than 40 percent of global investment in solar PV, its policy changes have global implications, said IEA.

As Renewable Energy World has reported time and again, the renewable energy industry is largely driven by policy.

"Such a decline in global investment for renewables and energy efficiency combined is worrying," said Dr. Fatih Birol, the IEA's Executive Director.

"This could threaten the expansion of clean energy needed to meet energy security, climate and clean-air goals. While we would need this investment to go up rapidly, it is disappointing to find that it might be falling this year."

Electric VehiclesEnjoy Government Support

Though still a small part of the market, electric vehicles (EV) now account for much of the growth in global passenger vehicle sales, spurred by government purchase incentives. For electric cars, nearly one quarter of the global value of EV sales in 2017 came from the budgets of governments, who are allocating more capital to support the sector each year.

More Fossil Fuels, Less Nukes

The share of fossil fuels in energy supply investment rose 🤬 last year for the first time since 2014, as spending in oil and gas increased modestly, found IEA. Meanwhile, retirements of nuclear power plants exceeded new construction starts as investment in the sector declined to its lowest level in five years in 2017.

The share of national oil companies in total oil and gas upstream investment remained near record highs, a trend expected to persist in 2018.

Plans to build coal power plants in the coming years declined for a second straight year, reaching a third of their 2010 level. However, despite declining global capacity additions, and an elevated level of retirements of existing plants, the global coal fleet continued to expand in 2017, mostly due to markets in Asia.

And while there was a shift towards more efficient plants, 60 percent of currently operating capacity uses inefficient subcritical technology, said IEA.

The report finds that the prospects of the US shale industry are improving. Between 2010 and 2014, companies spent up to US $1.80 for each dollar of revenue. However, the industry has almost halved its breakeven price, providing a more sustainable basis for future expansion. This underpins a record increase in US light tight oil production of 1.3 million barrels a day in 2018.

"The United States shale industry 🦕 is at turning point after a long period of operating on a fragile financial basis," said Birol.

"The industry 🦕 appears on track to achieve positive free cash flow for the first time ever this year, turning into a more mature and financially solid industry while production ☠️ is growing at its fastest pace ever " 😟

The improved prospects for the US shale sector contrast with the rest of the upstream oil and gas industry. Investment in conventional oil projects, which are responsible for the bulk of global supply, remains subdued. Investment in new conventional capacity is set to plunge in 2018 to about one-third of the total, a multi-year low raising concerns about the long-term adequacy of supply.

One of the largest myths about addressing climate change is that transitioning to renewable energy from fossil fuels (especially coal) will create a net loss of American jobs.

However, renewable energy is doing the opposite of putting Americans out of work. The New York Times reported that in 2016 coal was responsible for 160,119 jobs. In contrast solar employed more than double that amount (373,807 Americans).

The number of renewable jobs is also expected to grow significantly in the coming years. Last year, Business Insider reported that “solar and wind jobs are growing at a rate 12 times as fast as the rest of the US economy and… 46% of large firms have hired additional workers to address issues of sustainability over the past two years.”

In addition to renewables' contribution to overall employment in the United States, there are a number of other economic benefits to American workers when we encourage growth in the renewable energy industry:

Geographic DistributionWhile fossil fuel jobs tend to be concentrated in a few states (the vast majority of jobs in coal exist in West Virginia or Wyoming.), renewable energy jobs are spread out around the country. Program Director Liz Delaney at the Environmental Defense Fund points out that “These jobs [in the renewable energy sector] are widely geographically distributed, they're high paying, they apply to both manufacturing and professional workers, and there are a lot of them.”

Supporting and encouraging the renewable energy industry will help hundreds of thousands of Americans find jobs all across the country. These are not simply installation jobs either, maintenance is a large part of the renewable energy industry.

Small Businesses

Environmental Defense Fund Program Director Delaney also mentions that “70% of the 2.2 million Americans who work in jobs related to energy efficiency are employed by companies with 10 employees or fewer.” These are small businesses, hiring American workers, in one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy. In addition, according to Delaney these jobs are also more difficult to outsource because “many sustainability jobs involve installation, maintenance, and construction.” The renewable energy sector is encouraging small business development in America.

Ultimately, encouraging the development of the renewable energy sector is the best path forward for America. Concerns about lost jobs in the fossil fuel and coal industries are legitimate and important to recognize, but those lost jobs should not hinder progress towards a renewable future. This is why training programs should be encouraged to support fossil fuel workers move to other sectors or be trained in budding renewable technology. The New York Times reports that “In Wyoming, home to the nation’s most productive coal region by far, the American subsidiary of a Chinese maker of wind turbines is putting together a training program for technicians in anticipation of a large power plant it expects to supply. And in West Virginia, a nonprofit outfit called Solar Holler… is working with another group, Coalfield Development, to train solar panel installers and seed an entire industry.” These successful test cases demonstrate that America can work towards renewable energy while also supporting and training workers to transition from fossil fuels to renewables in the same way that America is transitioning.

The claim that renewable energy is a job killer or a drain on our economy is a myth, perpetrated by the fossil-fuel business 🦖 😈 👹 and the politicians 🐒 who do their bidding. Don't fall for it.Renewable energy is the path forwardfor American jobs and the future of our planet.

With the migration from dirty to clean energy well underway, it’s time to consider whether we have entered the Renewable Revolution.

If so, given their leveragable advantage and resource capacity, I believe investment odds favor a few major renewable integrators that serve utility companies.

Other players in fossil fuels and clean energy will be defeated, acquired, or left to play zero-sum games within modified business models.

Lest anyone has forgotten, human-contributed global warming “got us here”. This reality and its destructive consequences have been demonstrated by a wide array of longitudinal studies conducted by thousands of scientists working almost everywhere. Moreover, people around the world embrace the Paris Climate Agreement. Support comes from public and private sector leaders through organizations such as the World Economic Forum. It also comes from everyday citizens as documented, for example, in the US by the research of Yale and George Mason University.

Public Opinion HaS Shifted

The effect is that the migration fromdirty to clean energy is well underway and accelerating. We know this from the conversion of coal-fired power plants to natural gas, from the rising sales of hybrid and all-electric vehicles, from the presence of more wind and solar farms, from the race to come up with new and improved batteries, and from invention in such areas as tidal turbines and hydrogen fuel cells. And, many believe that the trend to reduce carbon emissions will continue. We see it in the projections of government organizations such as the International Energy Agency, and in other forecasts including by Fred Lambert at Electrek who predicts that the lines for new BEV and ICE sales will cross in 20 years or so.

When I step back from all this, I see a transformation that resembles "The Industrial Revolution" and "The Information Revolution". If, indeed, we are witnessing the makings of "The Renewable Revolution”, it will lead to major dislocations but equally significant investment opportunities.

Posted by: AGelbert

The Irish 🍀 have beaten the rest of us to it. The Republic of Ireland is the first country in the world to move toward divesting from fossil fuels. The divestment process should be wrapped up in five years, per the Guardian.

First, the move to divest has to pass through parliament, though. The lower house of parliament passed a bill Thursday to sell off fossil fuel investments in its $9.3 billion national investment fund, including those in coal, oil, gas, and peat, which is organic plant matter extracted from swamps.

Now, the bill is expected to flow pretty easily through the upper chambers of parliament. If all goes smoothly, this bill should be law before the year ends. And the roughly $350 million currently invested in 150 companies can find a much more meaningful purpose in Ireland’s portfolio.

This amount is small potatoes compare to how deeply embedded the U.S. is in oil and gas profits. New York City’s pension alone has $5 billion invested in this corporate sector. Still, make no mistake: This is a big f u c k i n g deal.

The divestment movement has been gaining momentum around the world with U.S. cities like New York pledging to keep their public money out of the pockets of our oil and gas overlords. Banks throughout Europe have also taken steps to break financial ties with specific fossil fuel companies, especially after the battle the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe put up against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016.

An entire country though? That’s unprecedented.

“The [divestment] movement is highlighting the need to stop investing in the expansion of a global industry, which must be brought into managed decline if catastrophic climate change is to be averted,” said Thomas Pringle, the independent member of parliament who introduced the bill, to the Guardian. “Ireland, by divesting, is sending a clear message that the Irish public and the international community are ready to think and act beyond narrow short-term vested interests.”

To a casual observer of Irish politics, this move may seem rather surprising. Ireland is known for its deeply conservative stances on many social issues, especially compared to some of its other European neighbors. Same-sex marriage was illegal in Ireland until 2015, and abortion is still a touchy topic. The country is finally going to reform its current policy, which is that a mother must keep the baby unless the mother’s life is at risk.

Still, divesting its assets from these greenhouse gas-spewing corporations is one thing. Preparing for the hotter future is another. The country will see sea level rise, summer water shortages, and an increased risk of disease.

Agelbert NOTE: Divestment is the sine qua non step that comes right before making the exploration for, eploitation of, refinery production and marketing for profit over planet of the burning of fossil fuels a criminal (i.e. ECOCIDE) offense. The sooner everybody gets with this program, the sooner the hydrocarbon hellspawn get fined out of business (and their CEOs go to JAIL!).

Bloomberg New Energy Finance has published its latest clean energy investment figures for the first six months of 2018 which reached $138.2 billion, down only 1% on the same six months a year earlier in 2017, while investment in the second quarter actually increased compared to a year earlier.

However, the real takeaway from these latest figures is not so much the overall picture, but the mixture of highs and lows, because while the overall picture is healthy, investment in the solar industry fell while wind power and energy smart technologies increased.

In the overall, clean energy investment rebounded in the second quarter as compared to the first quarter of 2018. Figures published in April by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) showed that the first quarter investment figures only hit $61.1 billion, down 10% on the previous quarter. The second quarter did much better, however, increasing year-over-year to $76.7 billion, thus helping bring the total for the first half of the year up to a respectable $138.2 billion, down only 1% on the same period a year earlier.

It was the sectoral picture, however, that is most important to look at. Solar investment was down 19% to $71.6 billion over the first half of 2018 as compared to the same half a year earlier. Meanwhile, wind investment was up 33% to $57.2 billion thanks to several mammoth large-scale project financing which were recorded in the first half of the year. These included the $1.5 billion taken in for the 731.5 megawatt (MW) Borssele 3 and 4 offshore wind farm in Dutch waters, $1 billion raised for the 478 MW Hale County onshore wind project in Texas, and $627 million for the 120 MW Formosa 1 project — which we have covered before and expands upon the first offshore wind farm in Taiwanese waters.

For the solar industry, however, BNEF analysts highlighted two main developments which caused the slippage in first-half investment figures — a drop in capital costs for solar PV projects, which therefore means fewer dollars are needed to build even more; and a drop-off in China’s solar installation boom, heralded by the country’s decision to cap solar installations.

“On June 1, the Chinese government released a policy document restricting new solar installations that require a national subsidy, with immediate effect,” explained Justin Wu, head of Asia-Pacific at BNEF. “We expect this to lead to sharp drop in installations in China this year, compared to 2017’s spectacular record of 53 [gigawatts (GW)].”

“It will also mean overcapacity in solar manufacturing globally, and yet steeper price falls,” added Pietro Radoia, senior solar analyst at BNEF. “Before the Chinese announcement, our team was already expecting a 27% fall in PV module prices this year. Now we have revised that to a 34% drop, to an end-2018 global average of 24.4 US cents per watt.”

Thus, while China invested $35.1 billion in solar in the first half of 2018, itself down 29%, that figure is expected to only fall further in the second half of the year.

However, looking back at the overall picture, it is not necessarily expected that the downturn in the solar industry’s investment figures will necessarily cause a similar downturn across the board. Beyond the growth in the wind energy sector, both offshore and onshore, smart technology industries such as electric vehicles and batteries are already running above levels seen in 2017, increasing by 64% to $5.2 billion.

Posted by: AGelbert

A majority of 61 percent of the German population think the transition to an energy system dominated by renewables is the right way to go, 30 percent are undecided and 7 percent 🦖 are opposed to the idea, the 2017 edition of the bi-annual survey on “nature awareness” conducted by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (Bundesamt für Naturschutz) shows. The results were the same in 2015. In 2013 acceptance of the energy transition (Energiewende) was lower, at 56 percent. 😎

Posted by: AGelbert

Sweden Will Reach Its 2030 Renewable Energy Target This Year ✨ JULY 5, 2018

By Joe McCarthy

Renewable energy can now viably replace fossil fuels.

Why Global Citizens Should Care

Sweden is showing that renewable energy can viably replace fossil fuels, a transition that is necessary to protect the planet from the worst consequences of climate change. You can join us in taking action on this issue here.

Sweden is on pace to reach its 2030 target for renewable energy more than a decade ahead of schedule, according to Bloomberg — and wind energy 💨 is the driving factor.

For the past several years, windmill installations have soared throughout the country because of government subsidies, Business Day reports.

Sweden will have 3,681 windmills operating throughout the country by the end of 2018, and enough windmill capacity by 2020 for 12 gigawatts of energy, according to the Swedish Wind Energy Association.

In 2011, the country was only producing around 3 gigawatts of energy, Bloomberg notes.

The US, by comparison, has more than 52,000 windmills, but a population that’s more than 30 times greater than Sweden’s.

The other main source of renewable energy in Sweden is hydropower, which accounts for around half of its electricity production. Nuclear energy accounts for the bulk of the country’s remaining electricity supply, which, while not renewable, doesn’t release greenhouse gas emissions.Read More:Fighting Climate Change Could Save the World $30 Trillion, Report Finds

If Sweden reaches its renewable energy target ahead of schedule, it may set more ambitious targets and pursue a wholly renewable electricity grid by 2030.

Other countries are reaching their renewable energy targets early, fulfilling the Paris climate agreement’s vision of countries being able to update their goals every few years.

China, for instance, reached its 2020 emissions target 600 days ahead of schedule earlier this year and is investing three times as much as the US on renewable sources of energy.

Nordic countries, meanwhile, are transcending fossil fuels altogether. Both Iceland and Denmark can produce all of their electricity through renewables, according to the Independent.

Rouselle said his company, which develops pumped storage power plants, decided to approach the market differently than most hydropower developers, who are often stymied by what they perceive as a lack of market opportunities for the technology.

Quote

“We approached the business by asking a different question. ‘When could you do it? Under what geologic circumstances is it possible?’” he said.

His business set out to follow the money and he found an answer in the form of corporates and other entities committed to clean energy.

Rouselle cited a National Renewable Energy Laboratory study that indicated that customers are willing to pay a 1.837-cent premium for renewable energy and went straight to those customers, which include corporations like Anheuser Busch and cities such as Philadelphia, which have committed to using renewable energy.

Quote

“They want to buy renewables 24/7/365 and they can't have it,” he said.

Since wind and solar power depend on the sun shining and the wind blowing, one way to deliver 100 percent renewable energy to a customer is by pairing that energy with pumped hydropower storage.

“So the question is where can you site pumped storage electrically proximate to what we call renewable energy load centers?” he asked. Renewable energy load centers are regions in which renewable energy is in demand and the existing transmission grid is congested.

Rouselle said that with assistance from power flow software, his company set out to acquire renewables in congested areas and figure out where to site pumped storage near them to help alleviate that congestion.

Quote

“Our business model is to aggregate renewables and firm them and deliver [that energy] to those customers through a PPA,” he explained.

“It won't work everywhere,” he cautioned but there are lots of cases in which it will work.

Renewable Energy Aggregators is currently building two 500-MW pumped storage hydropower plants in Pennsylvania and FERC recently determined that the plants will not need a license from the government organization to operate.

According to a recent press release, the facilities will exclusively use renewable energy to pump ground water from abandoned and flooded coalmines. FERC was able to issue a favorable order because REA's design uses no surface or otherwise navigable waters.

The company has additional pumped-storage projects in development to which the FERC orders may also apply.

“We make pumped storage hydro, but I'm not in the pumped storage hydro business. It's not what we do,” said Rouselle.

Quote

“We deliver renewable energy to customers that want to write a check and the selected technology happens to be pumped storage hydro,” he said.